Write a 5-6 page (1600-1800 word) paper in which you critically analyze the site using

Write a 5-6 page (1600-1800 word) paper in which you critically analyze the site using the themes and ideas of the course and provide specific evidence from the museum. This is not to say that you must say there’s something wrong—to be “critical” in this sense is not necessarily to “criticize”—but you’ll want to consider the implications of how words are defined and used, what’s missing and included in the process, and any relevant discussions we’ve had in class.
You must make substantive use at least four class readings to back up our complicate your arguments in substantive ways, citing specific passages to show how you are seeing the readings and give those authors credit for their ideas. For instance, if using the word “heritage” it’ll be hard not to reference Howard and/or Schofield’s discussions of what exactly this word means. Be clear about how you are using terms and remember that most are not self-evident. Note that this does not mean you have to agree with any of the readings—you just can’t ignore their arguments. You must also include specific evidence from the museum: you can’t just say “the texts are long” without providing examples and quantifying them, e.g. Refer to Lindauer for examples of how she builds arguments about broader issues and provides specifics from the exhibit to back these up. For instance, you may consider what kinds of media, displays, architecture, story-telling, the site uses and how that effects the understanding of course ideas. Pictures are good here!
This is an argumentative essay and must begin with a strong, clear thesis statement outlining what you will argue later. As with paper #1’s “part 2,” the discussion should center on bigger ideas of representation, history, heritage, value, ownership, etc., not the museum itself. The museum can provide you with examples, but the original argument must have implications beyond it.
Some questions you might consider include:
What is the history of this place? Who founded the museum or decided that this site should be a museum? Who paid for it? (Don’t guess here; provide evidence.)
Who is the “ideal” visitor (in Lindauer’s sense) is and what does that says about history, heritage, and power?
Whose heritage (and in what sense?) do you think is represented here?
Is there a sense in which it is universal heritage, per UNESCO? What conflicts does that cause?
Who are the stakeholders here and how many of them are represented explicitly? Implicitly?
What is the other side of the story? That is, what is being omitted from this presentation of history?
Do the exhibits address how the information presented was gathered? How were the “facts” of these stories about the past learned? How does this square with your understandings from this class about how we learn about the past? Why is this explicit/omitted?
How do things themselves matter in the exhibit: are they used as arguments for authenticity or justifications? Are they present at all? (Consider Abu El-Hajj especially here.)
Museum exhibits are always carefully constructed. Who do you think created this exhibit and what were they trying to accomplish? What should they have been trying to do (make an argument based on a close reading of course articles and displays; don’t just state your opinion here).
What similarities/important differences do you detect here compared to other sites we’ve discussed?